Wolfson Backtracks On Edwards/Iowa Claim

This afternoon, former Hillary Clinton flack Howard Wolfson, confronted by a Fox News colleague with actual Iowa polling that suggested Clinton wasn't the de facto second choice of John Edwards voters, backed away from his claim that an early disclosure of Edwards' affair cost Clinton the nomination. "There are a thousand different ways that you can play the what if game, but I do believe that the result would have been different had this become public year ago," he told Trace Gallagher.

Naturally, Wolfson's protestations against "playing the what if game" confuse me, since the most avid player of the "what if" game has been, uhm...Howard Wolfson:

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

With that earlier contention recanted, there's little left to his statement other than his brave contention that if things had gone differently, then there would be differences. Indeed! Imagine what might have been if Hillary Clinton had had another communications director!

Actually, there was a bit more to Wolfson's statement: "You know, if Senator Clinton hadn't gotten teary-eyed in New Hampshire, I think Senator Obama would have won New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee in January." Wow! Looks like someone's going to get a stern talking to from Geraldine Ferraro!

[WATCH.]

GALLAGHER: This came from Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign. He said that if John Edwards had come clean about his affair a year ago, that Hillary may very well be the Democratic nominee now. I want to bring in Howard Wolfson right now, and before I ask you this question, I want to show a quick poll. This is from the Washington Post entrance poll and it says that 43% of those who voted for John Edwards, their second choice was Barack Obama. Add that to the fact that after John Edwards dropped out of the race, your candidate, Hillary Clinton lost eleven contests. Now, let me ask you the question again: Do you still stand by what you said yesterday concerning concerning Barack Obama -- or, rather, concerning John Edwards' affair?

WOLFSON: Well, my gut tells me that had Senator Edwards dropped out of the race or had this become public prior to Iowa, that we would have done better in Iowa. The exit polling tells something different. I think the Obama campaign would argue differently. But at the end of the day, you can play the what if game endlessly. And you can play it both ways. You know, if Senator Clinton hadn't gotten teary-eyed in New Hampshire, I think Senator Obama would have won New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee in January. So, there are a thousand different ways that you can play the what if game, but I do believe that the result would have been different had this become public year ago.

Comments

[schicklett3]

Poor Hillary - LOL
She and her team just won't stop making fools of themselves.

[JaMar]

So Wolfson's still hung up on the "what if" suff, eh? The Clinton's and their henchmen/women are showing no desire to see a Democratic president elected in November. It's sick that everyone has to slurp Bill (BJ reference intended) because we can't bruise his ego or hurt his feelings. And it's especially sad that Hillary has manufacured and ran with the excuse that her supporters need to "have their voices heard" before she can fully support Obama. They were heard... they voted. His supporters were heard and voted in larger numbers.

Hillary thinks she's a leader, so why has she been doing such a terrible job of reigning in her supporters and surrogates and getting them to do the RIGHT thing... to work towards a Democratic landslide in November? What kind of leader is she if most of the country still isn't convinced that she's working in the best interest of HER OWN party?

[liseworks]

If she's a real leader, or Queen, whatever - then why doesn't she round up those 18 mil. PUmas -
Ask them for 2 bucks each, that's 36 mil. -
It would pay off her debt & then she'd gloat over the remaining big bucks that her poor followers don't have - they're HER PUmas, after all -

[Yola]

These men - Wolfson, Penn and Bill Clinton are the main reasons the lost!

[liseworks]

Forgot 1 person : Herself.

[sueno]

Clinton's problem was hiring Wolfson and Penn,
along with assuming that she was a shoe-in.
She lost cause she played the game wrong and with malice.
And let's face it, she was simply a bad candidate- You can't lie and expect to win.

[justobserve]

"Indeed! Imagine what might have been if Hillary Clinton had had another communications director".
That's so funny!
At least Wolson admitted that "if Senator Clinton hadn't gotten teary-eyed in New Hampshire, I think Senator Obama would have won New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee in January."
That is more in line with Hillary's own prediction that the primaries are over by Super Tuesday!
Well, those people have to get over and support Obama instead of spinning for Hillary 2012!

[EspressoAtNoon]

I never understood the idea that Edwards' followers would naturally support Clinton. I guess there's a racial argument to that one.

But on principle, Edwards and Obama both rejected PAC and Lobby money. Both were vocal against the neo-con ideology - Edwards, explicitly, Obama generally. Clinton, meanwhile was the neo-con darling, voting for Kyl-Lieberman, etc..

I was a fan of both Edwards and Obama and felt that Clinton stood for everything I was against. She was about lobby influence, neo-con foreign policy, etc.. Any educated person would not automatically go from Edwards to Clinton, but to Obama - that is, unless they had racial prejudices.

[YesWeCanada]

Someone brought up a good point on Anderson Cooper last night. That the Edwards affair revelation would have reminded voters of all the drama during the last 2 years of the Clinton reign. Thus having a negative effect on HRC in the race.

[liseworks]

Yeah, Canada !!!

L. from Canada

[sherbug]

Yes, it stands to reason if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. My question is what exactly is the reason that Hillary did not get the nomination. The PUMAs claim misogyny by the media and now Wolfson blames the media for not outing Edwards a year ago. When does the blame get assigned to Hillary Clinton and those in control of her campaign?

[liseworks]

LOL - & it that particular female hadn't been her, she would have been someone different & ONLY then, may have stood a chance ....

[rasthedestroyer]

Wolfman reminds me of that uncle from the ADdams family... what that guy's name?

[BarackMan]

Uncle Fester....and yes I too see the family resemblence.

Obama/Biden '08!

[spongebobby]

uncle fester (jackie coogan)

[SethBLiNK]

Hey, let's play the what if game!

What if any former Clinton campaigners who have anything to say that isn't 100% pro-Obama just go away and don't come back till November.

Even if this were true, it is an absolute wrong thing to say.

And to make matter worse it is absolutely untrue. In fact the evidence shows that the opposite is true.

[mscriblerus]

I wonder if he got push back because he was shooting his mouth off somewhere other than faux. Pimps don't look kindly on freebees.

[Tommygun264]

And if Superman's spaceship had landed in Germany instead of Kansas, Hitler would have won WWII!

It makes just as much sense and has just as much basis in reality as Wolfson's assertions.

[gallonjug]

This guy is still botching a campaign he lost two months ago! Amazing how bad he is at this!

[wbramh]

So let me get this right...
Obama puts his trust in Hillary to keep his message going while he's recharging his batteries in Hawaii.
Since he left the Mainland we've heard a constant barrage of threats by the Clinton regulars to wreak havoc at the Convention. Then, we had Bill, Penn and now Wolfson back in the haunting. Ickes must be busy with the recount.

The cats away - so the rats must play.

[Pherdnut]

Rupert appears to have decided to root for Obama. Fox is liable to be awfully wishy-washy for the next three months.

[DebbieinPhx]

What makes you say that? The great satan from downunder hates all things democrat. Just curious.

[Outsideadog]

Hi Debbie,

I'm an Aussie and I recently read that 'Murdoch has acquired Turkish citizenship to overcome the current obligations against capital sales to foreigners' (see Wikipedia) Maybe I can say 'hey...he's no Aussie...he's the great satan from Turkey!'.

There was a court case in 1958 that tried to stop his meddling in politics - too bad it failed. His dark career may have been stopped at its inception. We failed you America.

[gappedtoothgodwarrior]

Actually that's not true really, Murdoch hates whatever won't sell papers, get viewers.

He just goes for the lowest common denominator which is why he's brought us "when ... Attacks" or the page three girls.

The popularity of Obama is exactly up Murdochs alley.

Not sayting that as a argument against Obama incidentally. Murdoch is going to want to support whatever will have the most value to him vis-a-vis viewership.

Take the way the editions of The Sun handle the question of Scottish independance, the English edition is very keen the union while the Scottish edition is almost as brazen it it's calls for indipendance. Murdoch owns both.

[11907281]

I wonder if he said that to attach his negatives to O? The vast majority of those who worship the almighty dollar seem to lean R, with all the tax cut talk.